Integrated Management of Aphelenchoides besseyi infesting ... Sarkar and Kusal Roy.pdf · tuberose...

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 3299-3315

3299

Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.802.385

Integrated Management of Aphelenchoides besseyi infesting

Tuberose in Gangetic Plains of West Bengal

Shimpy Sarkar1* and Kusal Roy

2

1Department of Entomology, Lovely Professional University,

Phagwara-144411, Punjab, India 2Department of Agricultural Entomology, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur,

Nadia-741252, West Bengal, India *Corresponding author

A B S T R A C T

Introduction

Tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa L.) is one of

the important tropical bulbous flowering

plants grown for production of eternal floral

spikes. It is a very popular cut flower in the

eastern part of India (West Bengal and

Odisha), and also in the northern plains and

parts of the south. Its production is constrained

mainly by plant parasitic nematodes, insect-

pests and diseases. Among nematodes, the

foliar nematode, Aphelenchoides besseyi

Christie has emerged as a serious threat to

sustainable tuberose production in West

Bengal. Widespread occurrence of foliar

nematode infecting rice, tuberose, gladiolus

and onion was also reported from West

Bengal.

Nematode may survive on bulbs, leaves,

scapes, bracts, tepals and anthers but not in the

soil (Roy et al., 2010; Roy et al., 2011).

Second year onwards tuberose crop suffers

most from the infestation of foliar nematode,

this may lead to annual yield loss of 30 to 40%

in the 'Calcutta Double' cultivar as against

An experiment was conducted over two years from 2014 to 2016 to find out the suitable

management tactics against Aphelenchoides besseyi Christie in tuberose. The experiment was

planned in ‘Strip Factorial Design’. Three nematode management modules, two susceptible crop

cultivars and two spacings were used in the experiment. Management modules were adopted in order

to manage the population of A. besseyi in tuberose to minimize the infestation for sustainable

production of tuberose floral spikes. The IPM module of foliar nematode management comprising of

bulb treatment, field sanitation and three rounds of prophylactic spray with nematicides for the 1st

and 2nd year crop in the present experiment kept the A. besseyi population significantly lower than

the farmers’ practice module (bulb treatment + four rounds of prophylactic spray with nematicides

for the 1st and 2nd year crop) and untreated control. Hence, adoption of IPM module possibly made

the crop to achieve good growth and development as judged by the several attributes (spike length,

rachis length, number of nodes/spike, flower yields etc.) measured during the course of

experimentation. The maximum return per rupee investment for managing A. besseyi in tuberose was

observed with the IPM module being, Rs. 17.84. To enhance the flower yield of tuberose, Calcutta

Single cultivar can be planted in 30cm × 25cm spacing adopting IPM module of foliar nematode

management. Validation and promotion of developed IPM module of foliar nematode management

for the farmers raising tuberose in the Gangetic plains of West Bengal need to be done.

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 8 Number 02 (2019) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com

K e y w o r d s

Aphelenchoides

besseyi, Field

sanitation, Bulb

treatment and

Integrated

management

Accepted:

22 January 2019

Available Online: 10 February 2019

Article Info

https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.802.385


3300

59% in ‘Calcutta Single’ cultivar (Khan and

Pal, 2001; Pathak and Khan, 2009).

International quarantine exists against A.

besseyi, hence, their presence on cut flowers

may limit the potential of flower export.

Anhydrobiotic nature of A. besseyi creates a

barrier against permeability of nematicides

into nematode’s body, hence making the

nematicidal application unfruitful.

Considering the importance of nematodes in

the integrated pest management system and

increasing concern of environment, adoption

of low input plant protection technologies like,

summer ploughing, soil solarization, organic

manuring, adjustment of dates of

sowing/planting, spacing, adoption of resistant

varieties, clean cultivation and judicious use

of pesticides are gaining significance.

Integration of two or more above mentioned

methods could be adopted, for managing

nematode like, A. besseyi.

In view of its widespread occurrence and

increasing importance in the changing

agricultural scenario, their integrated

management tactics in tuberose was

undertaken.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted over two years

from 2014 to 2016 at the Central Research

Farm of BCKV, Gayeshpur, Nadia, West

Bengal. The farm was located at 22º87׳N

latitude, 88º20׳ E longitude with an elevation

of 9.75m above mean sea level. The

experimental design followed for the

experiment was Strip Factorial. Two

susceptible crop cultivar were used such as

V1: Calcutta Single, V2: Calcutta Double and

they were planted at two different spacings S1:

30 cm × 20 cm and S2: 30 cm × 25 cm, the

plot size was 2m×1.2m. Date of sowing of

bulbs was 19.04.2014 and the treatments were

replicated 3 times.

Treatment Details: M1: Untreated Control, M2:

Farmers’ Practice module: Bulb treatment:

Overnight pre-soaking of bulbs followed by

dipping in monocrotophos 36 SL @ 720ppm

for 4hrs before planting.

Prophylactic spray

Four rounds of foliar sprays with

monocrotophos 36 SL @ 360 g a.i./ha at 14

days interval commencing from initiation of

infestation for the 1st and 2

nd year crop.

M3: Integrated foliar nematode management

module: Bulb treatment: Overnight pre-

soaking of bulbs followed by dipping in cartap

hydrochloride 50 SP @1000ppm for 4hrs

before planting.

Field sanitation

Removal of debris from plant and plot

periodically (twice in a month) to restrict the

migration of nematode and inoculum load.

Prophylactic spray

First prophylactic spray with cartap

hydrochloride 50 SP @ 500g a.i. /ha + Active

80 (adjuvant) @ 5ml/15 litres of water at the

time of spike emergence.

Second prophylactic spray with chlorfenapyr

10 SC @ 100g a.i. /ha + Active 80 (adjuvant)

@ 5ml/15 litres of water at 14 days after 1st

spray.

Third prophylactic spray with cartap

hydrochloride 50 SP @ 500g a.i. /ha + Active

80 (adjuvant) @ 5ml/15 litres of water at 14

days after 2nd

spray.

Second year crop received first, second and

third spray with above mentioned nematicides

and adjuvant at 14 days interval commencing

from the spike emergence of tuberose.


3301

Initial Nematode Population

Varieties Population of A. besseyi /bulb

Untreated (M1) Treated (M2) Treated (M3)

Before planting After bulb treatment

before planting

After bulb treatment

before planting

Calcutta Single 3.3 1.2 0.5

Calcutta Double 1.4 0.7 0.2

Observations recorded

Initial population of A. besseyi / bulb to

ascertain presence of nematode, foliar

nematode population per 20g of plant parts

(leaves + flowers) at 14 days interval

commencing from appearance symptom,

observation on spike length (cm), length of

rachis (cm), number of nodes/spike, weight of

flowers/spike, spike yield (number/plot and

number/ha), weight of flowers (kg/plot and

q/ha), days to first blooming and 100%

blooming, flower yield in kg/plot and q/ha and

dry yield of bulb and bulb-lets (kg/plot and

q/ha)

Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance was worked out

following Strip Factorial design for

comparison of means (Gomez and Gomez,

1984). Incremental cost benefit ratio for the

assessment of the module was also worked

out.

Results and Discussion

Effect of management module, variety and

spacing on spike length (cm) of tuberose

during 2014-15 and 2015-16

The effect of management module, variety and

spacing on spike length of tuberose during

2014-15 and 2015-16 has been presented in

the table 1. There was no significant

difference in spike length among the

management modules during the 1st year but

during 2nd

year a significant variation in spike

length among management modules was

noticed and the maximum length was

observed in the M3 (IPM module) being, 92.1

cm. Pooled data also revealed significant

difference in spike length among management

modules with the maximum being, 91.0 cm

was recorded in the M3 i.e. IPM module

(Table 1). Significant difference in spike

length among varieties was observed only

during 1st year, where Calcutta Single had

maximum spike length (94.6 cm). Non-

significant effect of variety on the spike length

of tuberose was noticed in the 2nd

year. Pooled

data revealed significant influence of variety

on the spike length. Based on pooled data

highest spike length was noted with the

Calcutta Single variety being, 89.9 cm (Table

1). The spacings adopted to raise the tuberose

crop did not reveal significant influence on the

spike length (Table 1). Usually, spike length

was observed maximum when Calcutta Single

variety was planted in wide spacing and

adopted IPM module.


spacing on rachis length (cm) of tuberose

during 2014-15 and 2015-16


spacing on rachis length of tuberose during

2014-15 and 2015-16 has been presented in

the table 2. Significant difference in rachis

length among the management modules was

observed in both the years with the maximum

in the IPM module (M3). Considering pooled

data, maximum length of tuberose rachis was

recorded in the M3 i.e. IPM module being,

36.7 cm (Table 2). Tuberose variety also had a

significant influence on the rachis length


3302

during study period. Calcutta Double was

found superior to Calcutta Single in achieving

rachis length. Significant maximum rachis

length in both the years was observed with the

Calcutta Double variety being, 33.6 cm and

28.7 cm, respectively. Likewise, pooled data

also revealed similar trend with regard to the

rachis length.

Spacing revealed significant impact on the

rachis length only during second year of the

study. Wide spaced crop had comparatively

more rachis length than the narrow spaced

crop (Table 2).


spacing on number of nodes/spike of

tuberose during 2014-15 and 2015-16

Node is an important botanical part of

tuberose spike. Here, flower buds originate

from the node. More number of nodes means

more sites to accommodate flowers. Hence,

observation on number of nodes/spike has the

value to judge the performance of treatments

on the tuberose crop.


spacing on number of nodes/spike of tuberose

during 2014-15 and 2015-16 has been

presented here in the table 3. Foliar nematode

management module had non- significant

impact on the production of nodes/spike in the

1st year crop. In contrast, the 2

nd year crop had

significant difference in the number of

nodes/spike between management modules.

The highest number of nodes/spike was

always recorded in the IPM module. Mean

number of nodes/spike in the IPM module was

14.0 (pooled).

Unlike nematode management module, variety

too had an influence on the production of

number of nodes/spike. Calcutta Double

variety produced more number of nodes/spike

than the Calcutta Single variety. Mean number

of nodes/spike in the Calcutta Double variety

was 14.0 (pooled).

Spacing didn’t reveal any effect on number of

nodes/spike.

Effect of foliar nematode management

module, variety and spacing on number of

flowers/spike of tuberose during 2014-15

and 2015-16

Effect of foliar nematode management

module, variety and spacing on production of

flowers/spike in tuberose during 2014-15 and

2015-16 has been presented below in the table

4. Production of flowers/spike was maximum

in the IPM module as confirmed by the pooled

result of two years study. Number of

flowers/spike was 28.7 (pooled).

Variety exhibited significant influence on the

production of flowers/spike during the period

of experimentation. In reference to the

mentioned yield attribute, the variety Calcutta

Double was superior to the Calcutta Single.

Flower yield (number) of Calcutta Double

variety was 28.6/spike (pooled).

Spacing showed significant influence on

flower yield only in the 1st year crop, but the

ultimate effect of spacing on yield of flowers

(number/spike) was non-significant. In a

general perspective, irrespective of the variety

and the nematode management module the

wide spaced crop bore more flowers/spike

(Table 4).

Effect of management module, spacing and

variety on days to 1st and 100% blooming of

tuberose flower


variety on days to 1st blooming and 100%

blooming of tuberose flower has been

presented in the table 5. The foliar nematode

management modules and spacings in the

experiment had non-significant impact on the

number of days required to attain 1st as well as

100% blooming of tuberose flower. Data

showed comparatively lesser requirement of


3303

time to attain 1st and 100% blooming of

flowers in the plots received IPM module or

where bulbs were planted in narrow spacing

(S1).

The varieties played significant role on the

blooming of flowers as observed from the data

(Table 5). Calcutta Single took longer time to

start its blooming i.e. 192.6 days after planting

while, 100% blooming of spikes in the variety

was observed at 435.1 days after planting. In

contrast, the Calcutta Double took only 117.2

days to start blooming and 100% blooming

was attained in 415.0 days after planting of

bulbs.

Desai et al., (2016) reported that spacing had

non-significant effect on flowering of tuberose

cv. Shringar. Mishra et al., (2000) observed

that tuberose cultivars (Single and Double)

with closer spacing took longer time to

produce spikes than wide-spaced plants.

Malam et al., (2010) reported that days to

spike emergence and days to first flower

opening decreased with increase in spacing of

tuberose cv. Double. Ratoon crop flowers

early as compared to the first year crop. In the

present study, early emergence of spike and

flowers in narrow-spaced tuberose crop might

be due to reduction of growth that possibly

directed the plant towards the reproductive

phase earlier than the plant that acquired more

vegetative growth at wider spaces. Similar

observations on the mentioned aspect were

earlier cited by several workers (Mohanty et

al., 2002; Ahmed et al., 2010, Sheoran et al.,

2015).


spacing on weight of flowers (g/spike) and

flower yield of tuberose during 2014-15 and

2015-16


spacing on weight of flowers (g/spike) of

tuberose during 2014-15 and 2015-16 has

been presented below in the table 6.

Significant difference in the weight of flowers

(g/spike) among foliar nematode management

module was observed during 2nd

year. The

ultimate effect of management module on the

weight of flowers was significant. The

maximum weight of flowers was recorded in

the IPM module (M3) being, 45.6 g/spike

(pooled).

Calcutta Double variety has significantly

maximum weight of flowers being, 63.4 and

58.9 g/spike in the 1st and 2

nd year,

respectively. Pooled data also showed similar

influence of variety on the weight of

flowers/spike (Table 6).

Spacing had significant effect on weight of

flowers/spike only during 1st year where wide-

spaced crop gave more weight of flowers

(g/spike) than the narrow spaced crop (Table

6).

Impact of management module, variety and

spacing on the flower yield (kg/plot and q/ha)

of tuberose was significant in both the years

(Table 7 and 8). Flower yield per plot as well

as per ha was observed significantly maximum

in the IPM module being, 2.6 kg and 109.1 q,

respectively (pooled).

Effect of spacing and variety on the yield of

flowers (kg/plot or q/ha) was significant in

both the years (Table 7 and 8). Flower yield

was more in the wider spacing (30cm × 25cm)

than the narrower spacing (30cm × 20cm).

Loose flower yield of tuberose was maximum

in the wide spaced crop being, 85.5 and 88.2

q/ha in the 1st and 2

nd year, respectively (Table

8). Flower yield of tuberose was observed

maximum in the Calcutta Single variety being,

88.7 and 91.1 q/ha in the 1st and 2

nd year,

respectively (Table 8). In spite of having more

weight of flowers/spike, Calcutta Double

cultivar couldn’t produce more flower yield

(kg/plot and q/ha). Flower yield depends more

importantly on the number of floral spike


3304

production per unit area. Production of

tuberose spike/unit area was more in the

Calcutta Single than the Calcutta Double.

Thus, despite less weight of flowers/spike, the

flower yield in Calcutta Single cultivar was

more than the Calcutta Double cultivar.

Nematode management module and spacing

posed significant impact on the flower yield

(kg/plot and q/ha) of tuberose as confirmed by

the pooled result (Table 7, 8). Here, adoption

of IPM module along with wide spacing

fetched more flower yield.


variety on bulb yield of tuberose

Bulb yield (kg/plot and q/ha) of tuberose

varied significantly due to adoption of foliar

nematode management modules. Irrespective

of spacings and varieties, the IPM module

played an important role in achieving

maximum bulb yield of tuberose being,10.9

kg/plot and 454.7q/ha (Table 9). Among

varieties used in the experiment, the Calcutta

Double yielded maximum bulb which was 8.9

kg/plot and 369.8 q/ha (Table 9). In the

present study, spacing had non-significant

impact on the bulb production of tuberose.


variety on spike yield of tuberose during

2014-15 and 2015-16

Adoption of foliar nematode (A. besseyi)

management module, variety and spacing

played an important role in influencing the

spike yield (number/plot and number/ha) of

tuberose. Maximum yield (number) of

tuberose spike was obtained from the IPM

module (M3) being, 84.7/2.4 m2 plot and

3,52,777.8/ha during 2014-15 (Table 10).

Second year and pooled result showed non-

significant effect of nematode management

module on the spike yield but the M3 yielded

more number of spikes per plot as well as per

ha.

Table.1 Effect of management module, variety and spacing on spike length of tuberose during

2014-15 and 2015-16

Treatments Spike length (cm)

2014-15 2015-16 Pooled

M1 87.1 80.2 83.6

M2 86.8 85.7 86.3

M3 89.9 92.1 91.0

SEm (±) 1.32 1.57 1.17

LSD (0.05) NS 4.84 3.45

V1:Calcutta Single 94.6 85.3 89.9

V2:Calcutta Double 81.3 86.7 84.0

SEm (±) 0.70 0.73 0.85

LSD (0.05) 2.16 NS 2.51

S1:(30 × 20) cm 87.0 85.8 86.4

S2:(30 × 25) cm 88.9 86.2 87.5

SEm (±) 1.62 1.29 1.17

LSD (0.05) NS NS NS


3305

Table.2 Effect of management module, variety and spacing on rachis length of tuberose during

2014-15 and 2015-16

Treatments Rachis length (cm)

2014-15 2015-16 Pooled

M1 25.6 16.6 11.5

M2 25.4 25.9 21.4

M3 27.4 38.6 36.7

SEm (±) 0.40 0.88 0.55

LSD (0.05) 1.23 2.71 1.62



SEm (±) 0.39 0.55 0.26

LSD (0.05) 1.20 1.69 0.77

S1:(30 × 20) cm 25.4 26.4 25.9

S2:(30 × 25) cm 26.8 27.6 27.2

SEm (±) 0.43 0.12 0.39

LSD (0.05) NS 0.37 NS

Note: M1= Untreated control, M2= Farmer’s practice module and M3= Integrated pest management module

Table.3 Effect of management module, variety and spacing on number of nodes/spike of


Treatments Number of nodes/spike

2014-15 2015-16 Pooled

M1 10 9 10

M2 11 14 12

M3 11 17 14

SEm (±) 0.31 0.26 0.23

LSD (0.05) NS 0.80 0.68

V1:Calcutta Single 8 12 10

V2:Calcutta Double 13 15 14

SEm (±) 0.12 0.24 0.12

LSD (0.05) 0.37 0.74 0.35

S1:(30 × 20) cm 11 13 12

S2:(30 × 25) cm 11 14 12

SEm (±) 0.17 0.18 0.16

LSD (0.05) NS NS NS


3306

Table.4 Effect of foliar nematode management module, variety and spacing on number of

flowers/spike of tuberose during 2014-15 and 2015-16

Treatments Number of flowers/spike

2014-15 2015-16 Pooled

M1 22.1 18.9 20.5

M2 21.8 28.0 24.9

M3 23.5 33.9 28.7

SEm (±) 0.64 0.53 0.46

LSD (0.05) NS 1.63 1.36



SEm (±) 0.37 0.48 0.23

LSD (0.05) 1.14 1.48 0.68

S1:(30 × 20) cm 22.0 26.5 24.3

S2:(30 × 25) cm 22.9 27.4 25.1

SEm (±) 0.15 0.35 0.33

LSD (0.05) 0.46 NS NS

Table.5 Effect of management module, spacing and variety on days to 1st and 100% blooming

of tuberose flower (mean of two crop seasons)

Treatments Days to first blooming Days to 100% blooming

M1 160.5 428.0

M2 152.2 425.8

M3 151.9 421.3

SEm (±) 12.91 2.58

LSD(0.05) NS NS

V1: Calcutta Single 192.6 435.1

V2: Calcutta Double 117.2 415.0

SEm(±) 8.62 1.79

LSD(0.05) 26.56 5.52

S1: (30 × 20)cm 146.1 423.6

S2: (30 × 25)cm 163.7 426.6

SEm (±) 11.81 2.00

LSD (0.05) NS NS



3307

Table.6 Effect of management module, variety and spacing on weight of flowers (g/spike) of


Treatments Weight of flowers (g/spike)

2014-15 2015-16 Pooled

M1 38.5 28.8 33.7

M2 37.7 42.3 40.0

M3 41.3 49.9 45.6

SEm (±) 1.09 1.15 0.93

LSD (0.05) NS 3.54 2.74

V1: Calcutta Single 14.9 21.8 18.3

V2: Calcutta Double 63.4 58.9 61.2

SEm (±) 0.73 0.81 0.48

LSD (0.05) 2.25 2.50 1.42

S1:(30 × 20) cm 37.9 39.9 38.9

S2:(30 × 25) cm 40.4 40.8 40.6

SEm (±) 0.16 0.86 0.65

LSD (0.05) 1.48 NS NS

Table.7 Effect of management module, variety and spacing on flower yield (kg/plot) of tuberose

during 2014-15 and 2015-16

Treatments Flower yield (kg/plot)

2014-15 2015-16 Pooled

M1 1.5 1.0 1.2

M2 1.8 1.9 1.9

M3 2.4 2.9 2.6

SEm (±) 0.17 0.18 0.23

LSD (0.05) 0.52 0.55 0.68



SEm (±) 0.14 0.10 0.02

LSD (0.05) 0.43 0.31 NS

S1: (30 × 20) cm 1.7 1.8 1.7

S2: (30 × 25) cm 2.1 1.9 2.1

SEm (±) 0.03 0.05 0.19

LSD (0.05) 0.09 0.15 NS


3308

Table.8 Effect of management module, variety and spacing on flower yield (q/ha) of tuberose

during 2014-15 and 2015-16

Treatments Flower yield (q/ha)

2014-15 2015-16 Pooled

M1 61.4 43.0 52.2

M2 73.8 80.5 77.1

M3 98.1 120.1 109.1

SEm (±) 7.15 7.57 9.60

LSD (0.05) 22.03 23.33 28.32



SEm (±) 5.67 4.04 1.08

LSD (0.05) 17.47 12.45 NS

S1: (30 × 20) cm 69.9 74.2 72.0

S2: (30 × 25) cm 85.5 88.2 86.9

SEm (±) 1.06 2.43 7.86

LSD (0.05) 3.27 7.49 NS


Table.9 Effect of management module, spacing and variety on bulb yield of tuberose

Treatments Bulb yield

(kg/2.4m2 plot)

Bulb yield

(q/ha)

M1 5.3 221.1

M2 7.8 334.2

M3 10.9 454.7

SEm (±) 0.31 12.91

LSD (0.05) 0.96 39.78

V1: Calcutta Single 7.3 303.5

V2: Calcutta Double 8.9 369.8

SEm (±) 0.34 14.47

LSD (0.05) 1.05 44.59

S1: (30 × 20) cm 8.1 337.1

S2: (30 × 25) cm 8.1 336.2

SEm (±) 0.16 6.81

LSD (0.05) NS NS


3309

Table.10 Effect of management module, spacing and variety on spike yield (number/plot) of


Treatments Spike yield (number/2.4m2 plot)

2014-15 2015-16 Pooled

M1 55.4 49.3 52.4

M2 69.1 60.6 64.8

M3 84.7 76.2 80.5

SEm (±) 5.41 5.97 6.70

LSD (0.05) 16.67 NS NS



SEm (±) 4.21 3.75 3.15

LSD (0.05) 12.97 11.55 9.29

S1: (30 × 20) cm 64.8 59.0 61.9

S2: (30 × 25) cm 74.6 65.1 69.8

SEm (±) 0.93 0.91 5.11

LSD (0.05) 2.87 2.80 NS

Table.11 Effect of management module, spacing and variety on spike yield (number/ha) of


Treatments Spike yield (number/ha)

2014-15 2015-16 Pooled

M1 230903 205556 218229

M2 287847 252431 270139

M3 352778 317361 335070

SEm(±) 22527.59 24125.83 27928.01

LSD(0.05) 69414.41 NS NS

V1: Calcutta Single 443750 400000 421875

V2: Calcutta Double 137269 116898 127083

SEm(±) 17535.41 15604.84 13137.89

LSD(0.05) 54031.98 48083.30 38756.75

S1: (30×20) cm 270139 245833 257986

S2: (30×25) cm 310880 271065 290972

SEm(±) 3870.00 3807.13 21307.78

LSD(0.05) 11924.66 11730.93 NS


3310

Table.12 Effect of management module, variety and spacing on population of A. besseyi in

tuberose at different days after spray during 2014-15

Treatments Population of A. besseyi / 20g of plant parts

2014-15

Before

spray

7 days

after 1st

spray

14 days

after 1st

spray

7 days

after 2nd

spray

14 days

after 2nd

spray

7 days

after 3rd

spray

14 days

after 3rd

spray

M1 10.6

(141.0)

10.6

(113.8)

10.8

(115.8)

11.0

(120.9)

10.7

(114.5)

9.7

(94.6)

9.4

(87.4)

M2 10.0

(100.3)

9.2

(88.2)

8.7

(75.9)

8.9

(78.8)

7.2

(52.7)

4.9

(24.3)

7.0

(49.3)

M3 8.7

(79.5)

9.2

(83.9)

8.3

(68.9)

7.7

(59.8)

4.0

(15.9)

2.1

(5.0)

1.0

(0.9)

SEm (±) 0.55 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.26

LSD (0.05) NS 0.77 0.92 0.62 0.43 0.65 0.80

V1: Calcutta

Single

10.1

(118.6)

10.1

(104.2)

9.4

(90.5)

9.6

(93.8)

7.7

(67.9)

5.8

(43.4)

5.2

(37.1)

V2: Calcutta

Double

9.5

(95.2)

9.2

(86.4)

9.0

(83.4)

8.8

(79.1)

6.9

(54.2)

5.3

(39.1)

4.7

(29.9)

SEm (±) 0.82 0.38 0.27 0.22 0.21 0.28 0.16

LSD (0.05) NS NS NS 0.68 0.65 NS 0.49

S1: (30 × 20)

cm

11.1

(110.4)

10.0

(102.2)

9.3

(88.7)

9.3

(89.4)

7.6

(65.2)

5.5

(42.3)

5.1

(35.6)

S2: (30 × 25)

cm

8.4

(103.4)

9.3

(88.4)

9.1

(85.1)

9.0

(83.5)

7.0

(56.8)

5.6

(40.2)

4.7

(31.4)

SEm (±) 0.43 0.48 0.12 0.19 0.09 0.16 0.26

LSD (0.05) 1.32 NS NS NS 0.28 NS NS


3311


tuberose at different days after spray during 2015-16


2015-16

Before

spray

7 days

after 1st

spray

14 days

after 1st

spray

7 days

after 2nd

spray

14 days

after 2nd

spray

7 days

after 3rd

spray

14 days

after 3rd

spray

M1 10.5

(115.8)

10.8

(121.3)

10.5

(113.0)

10.0

(100.8)

10.4

(110.5)

10.1

(102.5)

8.8

(77.8)

M2 9.7

(94.9)

9.1

(83.7)

9.4

(69.3)

7.4

(57.6)

7.6

(58.4)

6.6

(44.5)

4.5

(20.5)

M3 8.2

(68.5)

8.6

(75.1)

7.2

(51.9)

4.8

(21.7)

4.1

(17.4)

2.7

(8.1)

1.4

(2.1)

SEm (±) 0.85 0.77 0.32 0.27 0.47 0.37 0.27

LSD (0.05) NS NS 0.99 0.83 1.45 1.14 0.83

V1: Calcutta

Single

9.9

(101.9)

10.0

(102.5)

9.5

(94.2)

7.7

(64.6)

7.9

(69.5)

6.8

(55.5)

5.2

(37.1)

V2: Calcutta

Double

9.0

(84.2)

9.0

(84.2)

8.5

(74.3)

7.1

(54.6)

6.8

(54.7)

6.1

(47.9)

4.7

(29.9)

SEm (±) 0.39 0.35 0.27 0.17 0.30 0.29 0.16

LSD (0.05) NS NS 0.83 0.52 0.92 NS 0.49

S1: (30 × 20)

cm

9.6

(95.4)

9.8

(98.1)

9.3

(89.8)

7.5

(61.3)

7.3

(63.1)

7.0

(52.3)

5.1

(35.6)

S2: (30 × 25)

cm

9.3

(90.7)

9.2

(88.6)

8.7

(78.7)

7.3

(57.9)

7.4

(61.1)

6.2

(51.1)

4.7

(31.4)

SEm (±) 0.63 0.17 0.14 0.16 0.45 0.40 0.26

LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Note: Data shown are x+0.5 transformed values, figures in parentheses indicate original values, M1= Untreated

control, M2= Farmer’s practice module and M3= Integrated pest management module


3312


tuberose at different days after spray (Pooled)


Pooled

Before

spray

7 days

after 1st

spray

14 days

after 1st

spray

7 days

after 2nd

spray

14 days

after 2nd

spray

7 days

after 3rd

spray

14 days

after 3rd

spray

M1 10.6

(128.4)

10.7

(117.5)

10.6

(114.4)

10.5

(110.9)

10.5

(112.5)

9.9

(98.5)

9.1

(82.6)

M2 9.8

(97.6)

9.1

(85.9)

9.0

(70.5)

8.1

(68.2)

7.4

(55.5)

5.7

(34.4)

5.8

(34.9)

M3 8.4

(74.0)

8.9

(79.5)

7.7

(60.4)

6.3

(40.7)

4.0

(16.7)

2.4

(6.5)

1.2

(1.5)

SEm (±) 0.65 0.50 0.33 0.20 0.24 0.21 0.16

LSD (0.05) NS NS 0.97 0.59 0.71 0.62 0.47

V1: Calcutta

Single

10.0

(110.3)

10.0

(103.4)

9.5

(92.4)

8.7

(79.2)

7.8

(68.7)

6.3

(49.5)

5.5

(43.1)

V2: Calcutta

Double

9.2

(89.7)

9.1

(85.3)

8.8

(78.8)

8.0

(66.8)

6.9

(54.4)

5.7

(43.5)

5.1

(36.2)

SEm (±) 0.35 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.14

LSD (0.05) NS 0.18 0.38 0.44 0.50 NS NS

S1: (30 × 20) cm 10.3

(102.9)

9.9

(100.2)

9.3

(89.3)

8.4

(75.4)

7.5

(64.2)

6.1

(47.3)

5.5

(41.3)

S2: (30 × 25) cm 8.9

(97.1)

9.3

(88.5)

8.9

(81.9)

8.2

(70.7)

7.2

(59.0)

5.9

(45.7)

5.2

(38.0)

SEm (±) 0.55 0.34 0.28 0.11 0.18 0.20 0.15

LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Note: Data shown are x+0.5 transformed values, figures in parentheses indicate original values,

M1= Untreated control, M2= Farmer’s practice module and M3= Integrated pest management module.

Table.15 Comparative economics of adopted foliar nematode management modules in tuberose

over the growing period of 2014-16

Module Total

yield of

loose

flowers in

two years

(q/ha)

Yield of Gain in flower Gain in bulb

yield

Value of

additional

Total chemical

used per

Cost of treatment in

two

Total cost

of

Net

gain

Incremental

bulb after yield over

control

over control

(q/ha)

flowers

and bulb

yield

(Rs./ha)

ha in two years years (Rs./ha) treatment

in

two years

(Rs./ha)

(Rs./h

a)

Cost:

Benefit

2nd year

(q/ha)

in two years

(q/ha)

Chemical Labour

Farmers'

practice

module

154.30 334.20 49.90 113.10 111110.00 Monocrotophos

36

SL 17 litres

5950.00 1944.00 7894.00 103216

.00

1:14.08

IPM

module

218.20 454.70 113.80 233.60 250960.00 Cartap

hydrochloride 50 SP 13kg +

Chlorfenapyr 10

SC 2 litres + Active

80 1 litre

12608.00 1458.00 14066.00 236894

.00

1:17.84

Untreated

control

104.4 221.1 - - - - - - - -

Note: Market price of monocrotophos 36SL @ Rs.350/litre, cartap hydrochloride 50 SP @ Rs.650/kg, chlorfenapyr

10 SC @ Rs. 900/kg, tuberose flowers (loose) @ Rs. 2000/q, tuberose bulbs @ Rs. 100/q, labour wages @ Rs. 243/-

manday.


3313

Nematode management module may not influence

the spike yield significantly (based on pooled

result) but the flower yield (kg/plot and q/ha)

which was worked out based on spike yield was

varied significantly due to adoption of the

integrated foliar nematode management tactics as

evident from the result (Table 7 and 8).

The variety Calcutta Single yielded significantly

maximum number of spikes in both the years

which was 106.5 and 96.0/plot and 4,43,750 and

4,00,000/ha during 2014-15 and 2015-16,

respectively (Table 10 and 11). Pooled data also

showed similar outcome.

Planting of bulbs in wide spacing (30cm × 25cm)

yielded significantly maximum number of spikes

i.e. 3,10,880 and 2,71,065/ha for the 1st and 2

nd

year, respectively (Table 11). Though the effect of

spacing on spike yield was non-significant

considering pooled data but the trend was similar

to that of individual year-wise observation (Table

10 and 11).


spacing on population of A. besseyi in tuberose

at different days after spray during 2014-15

and 2015-16

Effect of foliar nematode management module,

variety and spacing on population of A. besseyi in

tuberose was studied at different days after spray

during 2014-15 and 2015-16. Total number of

foliar spray of nematicides was three and four

respectively for the IPM module and famers’

practice, respectively in each year. In farmers’

practice, spray was initiated at the commencement

of A. besseyi infestation; while, in IPM module

spray was initiated at the time of floral spike

emergence. For the ease of comparison of

performance of the nematicidal spray included in

the management module, nematode population

(number /20g of plant parts) data at regular

interval after three round of spray has been

presented in tabular form below (Table 12-14).

Significant difference in population (number/20g

plant parts) of A. besseyi between management

modules at 7 and 14 days after each round of

spray was observed in the 1st year (Table 12). All

time except 7 days after 1st round of spray, the

nematode population varied significantly between

management modules as found in the second year

and pooled result (Table 13 and 14). Population of

A. besseyi in tuberose before spray didn’t vary

significantly (Table 12-14). Population of A.

besseyi / 20g of plant parts at seven days after 1st

round of spray with cartap hydrochloride 50 SP @

500g a.i. /ha + Active 80 (adjuvant) @ 5ml/15

litres of water in M3 (IPM module) was found

statistically at par with the spray of

monocrotophos 36 SL @ 360 g a.i./ha in M2

(farmers’ practice module) in each year (Table 12

and 13).

The variation in foliar nematode population

between M2 and M3 was significant at 14 days

after 1st round of spray with the least being,

51.9/20g plant parts in M3 in the 2nd

year (Table

13). In the first year, significant variation in foliar

nematode population between M2 and M3 was

observed first at 7 days after second round of

spray of nematicides, the least was 59.8/20g plant

parts recorded in M3 which involves spray of

chlorfenapyr 10 SC @ 100g a.i. /ha + Active 80

(adjuvant) @ 5ml/15 litres of water. Thereafter, a

significant gradual decline in the nematode

population at regular interval was observed due to

adoption of nematicidal sprays in the ‘famers’

practice’ and ‘IPM’ module. Least nematode

population was noted at 14 days after third round

of spray with cartap hydrochloride 50 SP @ 500g

a.i. /ha + Active 80 (adjuvant) @ 5ml/15 litres of

water i.e. M3 (Table 12-14).

Out of two varieties of tuberose, Calcutta Single

had more population of foliar nematode than the

Calcutta Double in general. Based on pooled

analysis of two years data, significantly low

population of A. besseyi was recorded in the

Calcutta Double variety all time except at 7 days

after 3rd

round of spray. Population of nematodes

between varieties didn’t vary before spray of

nematicides.

Population of nematodes between spacings didn’t

vary significantly due to spray of nematicides

(pooled, Table 14) but wide spaced crop had

comparatively lesser population than the narrow

spaced crop and this probably helped the wide-

spaced crop to achieve better growth. The better

plant growth contributed a better flower yield in

wide-spaced crop (Table 8).


3314

Population of A. besseyi per 20g of plant parts

before spray was also least with the IPM module

(M3) where overnight pre-soaking of bulbs

followed by dipping in cartap hydrochloride 50

SP @1000ppm for 4 hrs before planting was

practiced. This was followed by the farmers’

practice module (M2) where overnight pre-soaking

of bulbs followed by dipping in monocrotophos

36 SL @ 720ppm for 4 hrs before planting was

adopted. That is why nematode population before

spray was lesser in the modules having bulb

treatment than the untreated one. Even after three

rounds of spray, much decline in nematode

population was not noticed in the farmers’

practice module. So, a fourth round of spray with

monocrotophos 36 SL @ 360 g a.i./ha was given

here.

Bulb treatment with cartap hydrochloride 50 SP

@1000ppm was found more helpful than the bulb

treatment with monocrotophos 36 SL @ 720ppm

to keep the nematode population low (Table 14).

Comparative economics of adopted foliar

nematode management modules in tuberose

over the growing period of 2014-16

The IPM module was much better in increasing

the production of flowers and bulbs of tuberose

and securing net gain almost double to that of

farmers’ practice module. The incremental cost

benefit ratio was found more in IPM module than

the farmers’ practice module. The maximum

return per rupee investment for managing A.

besseyi in tuberose was observed with the IPM

module being, Rs. 17.84 (Table 15).

Despite more treatment cost high incremental

benefit of treatment was obtained in the IPM

module of foliar nematode management than the

farmers’ practice module. The maximization of

flower and bulb yields due to adoption of foliar

nematode management treatments was observed

in the IPM module. That possibly helped to

achieve maximum incremental benefit in the IPM

module. Farmers’ practice module also achieved

benefit due to adoption of nematode management

protocol but was inferior to that of IPM module.

Significant cumulative effect of foliar nematode

management module, spacing and variety on the

spike length, rachis length, number of nodes/spike

and days to 1st and 100% blooming was not

observed in the study. Individually the

management module and the variety had shown

positive impact on the spike length, rachis length

and the number of nodes/spike of tuberose crop.

Only variety had significant effect on the days to

1st and 100% blooming of

tuberose. Spacings on the other hand revealed

non-significant influence on the spike length,

rachis length, number of nodes/spike, days to 1st

and 100% blooming and number of flowers/spike.

In the present study, spike length, rachis length,

number of nodes/spike and flower yield (number

and weight basis) were usually observed

maximum when widely spaced crop

was raised adopting IPM module. The effect was

not statistically significant. Widely grown plants

harbour less foliar nematode population and also

availability of more nutrients to each plant made

the spacing superior over narrow-spaced crop.

Kumar et al., (2002) observed increased leaf

number, flower production, spike and rachis

length from wider spaced (30cm×30cm) bulbs of

tuberose cv. Single. Improved flower production

and heavier individual florets was observed with

wider spaced (30cm×30cm) tuberose plants

(Khobragade et al., 1997; Singh and Sangama,

2000; Kumar et al., 2002). The IPM module of

foliar nematode management comprising of bulb

treatment, field sanitation and prophylactic

spraying with nematicides in the present

experiment kept the A. besseyi population (as

judged by the population per 20g of plant parts at

different time interval after spray) significantly

lower than the farmers’ practice module and

untreated control. Hence, adoption of IPM module

possibly made the crop to achieve good growth

and development as judged by the several

attributes (spike length, rachis length, number of

nodes/spike, flower yields etc.) measured during

the course of experimentation.

In conclusion, the IPM module of foliar nematode

management comprising of bulb treatment, field

sanitation and prophylactic spraying with

nematicides in the present experiment kept the A.

besseyi population significantly lower than the

farmers’ practice module and untreated control.

Hence, adoption of IPM module possibly made


3315

the crop to achieve good growth and development

as judged by the several attributes (spike length,

rachis length, number of nodes/spike, flower

yields etc.) measured during the course of

experimentation. The maximum return per rupee

investment for managing A. besseyi in tuberose

was observed with the IPM module being, Rs.

17.84. To enhance the flower yield of tuberose,

Calcutta Single cultivar can be planted in 30cm ×

25cm spacing adopting IPM module of foliar

nematode management. Validation and promotion

of developed IPM module of foliar nematode

management for the farmers raising tuberose in

the Gangetic plains of West Bengal need to be

done.

References

Ahmed, M.J., Bashir, T., Yaqoob, A., Jilani, M.S.

and Saeed, M. 2010. Effect of plant spacing on

vegetative and reproductive growth of

Gladiolus cultivars. Sarhad Journal of

Agriculture, 26: 539-543.

Desai, N., Mamatha, B. and Patil, R. B. 2016. Effect

of spacing and fertilizer levels on flowering and

concrete yield in tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa

L.) cv. Shringar. Journal of Farm Science,

29(2): 290-293.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2

nd

Edition. A Willey Inter-science Publications,

John Willey and Sons, pp. 680.

Khan, M.R. and Pal, A.K. 2001. Plant parasitic

nematodes associated with tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa L.) in West Bengal. Annals of Plant

Protection Sciences, 9: 357-359.

Khobragade, R.I., Damke. M.M., Jadhao. B.J. and

Hedau C.V. 1997. Effect of planting time and

spacing on growth, flowering and bulb

production of tuberose cv. ‘Single’. PKV

Research Journal, 21: 44-47.

Kumar, R., Gobind, S. and Yadav, D. S. 2002.

Studies on N and P requirement of tuberose

(Polianthes tuberosa Linn.) cv. Single in hilly

soils. Haryana Journal of Horticulture Science,

31(1/2): 52-54.

Malam, V.R., Singh, S.P., Ahlawat T.R., Mathukia,

R.K. and Jat, G. 2010. Effect of spacing and

crop duration on growth, flowering and bulb

production in tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa L.)

cv. Double. Journal of Horticultural Sciences,

5(2): 134-137.

Mishra, H., Singh, A.K. and Singh, O.P. 2000.

Effect of bulb size and spacing on growth and

flowering behaviour of tuberose (Polianthes

tuberosa L.). Advance Plant Science, 13(2):

115-125.

Mohanty, C.R., Mishra, M. and Mohapatra, A. 2002.

In: Floriculture Research Trend in India, Misra,

R.L. and Misra, S. (eds.). Proceedings of

National Symposium on Indian Floriculture in

the new Millennium, pp. 340-342.

Pathak, B. and Khan, M.R. 2009. Yield loss

potential of foliar nematode, Aphelenchoides

besseyi in tuberose. Indian Journal of Nematolology, 39(1): 38-40.

Roy, K., Sarkar, H.K. and Pramanik, A. 2010.

Morpho-anatomical changes in Gladiolus due to

infection by Aphelenchoides besseyi from West

Bengal, India. Floriculture and Ornamental

Biotechnology, 4: 96-98.

Roy, K., Sarkar, H.K. and Pramanik, A. 2011. Symptoms and morpho-anatomical changes in

leaves of Polianthes tuberosa with infection of

Aphelenchoides besseyi. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, 19(1): 249-250.

Sheoran, S., Dudi, O.P., Beniwal, B.S. and Dalal,

R.P.S. 2015. Effect of nitrogen and Spacing on

flowering and yield of tuberose (Polianthes

tuberose L.) cv. Prajwal. Annals of Biology,

31(2): 270-274.

Singh, K.P. and Sangama. 2000. Effect of fertilizer

on growth and flowering of tuberose

(Polianthes tuberosa). Journal of Applied

Horticulture, 2(1): 54-55.

How to cite this article:

Shimpy Sarkar and Kusal Roy. 2019. Integrated Management of Aphelenchoides besseyi

Infesting Tuberose in Gangetic Plains of West Bengal. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 8(02):

3299-3315. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.802.385

https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.802.385

Integrated Management of Aphelenchoides besseyi infesting ... Sarkar and Kusal Roy.pdf · tuberose...

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Management of Aphelenchoides besseyi infesting ... Sarkar and Kusal Roy.pdf · tuberose...